User talk:Nanabozho

Welcome...

Wíelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me here and I'll give it my best shot, ask someone who actually knows what they are doing, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Lost Lake, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanabozho writes: I was wondering if you couldn't be a little more vague as to the reasons Lost Lake shouldn't be in Wikipedia? Read what you wrote me, then tell me what content was in what you wrote? Does what you wrote me, meet Wikipedia's standards? Here is a little bit about Lost Lake in Mound: Council elections are won and lost over the issue of will Mound have new boat traffic? City Managers get fired when the dredge goes way over budget. Huge amounts of money get spent on removing old dumps on its shores. Are you saying Lost Lake is un-important? And why doesn't the deleted article show up in my contributions? Are we saying I have to keep copies now of what I write in case Wikipedia dis-appears it? I tried to write into the article, why Lost Lake is important? I wrote words to the effect that, it is key to our future, some believe, without being biased. Another happy Wikipedia user, huh? Nanabozho 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be a little more clear, I didn't believe your article met Notability guidelines, how could I verify that you weren't making up this "Lost Lake" ? See Wikipedia:Notability] Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanabozho writes: If you Google Mound Minnesota Lost Lake with a bit of looking you will see that someone is building over 30 half million dollar townhouses on it called the Villas on Lost Lake. And that the City of Mound seems to have something on their site about it. So does this mean if I re-write the dis-appeared article, it will vanish again when the next volunteer sees it? Tell me what to do? I am kind of offended that you might think I just make places up, but I will get over that.

Go read here for guidelines on writing an article about a lake. Don't be offended, you have to realize thousands of articles are created every hour and it's quite a chore sifting through the real ones and the fake ones, I'm doing my best to tell. Please read the guidelines for a Lake article and what other Lake articles look like and recreate it. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lakes. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanabozho, I'm truly sorry you hate wikipedia as you put on your blog, but I want to clear something up. I didn't delete your article, I simply marked it as speedy deletion, another administrator deleted it. You could have stopped the process by following the instructions of the warning by putting a {{hangon}} tag on the top of the article. Watching the new pages part of wikipedia is thankless work, you sift through hundreds of fake articles and once in a while you'll make a mistake and tag a legitimate article as fake. Once again I'm sorry, and I hope you contribute to wikipedia in the future. 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is over, I understand. I'd link to my blog where more of this discussion is at, but that's probably against the rules. (Now if you were to type: IHateWikipediaDOTcom into your address bar...) I don't really hate Wikipedia, though I consider the domain name to have some value. Onward and upward from here, OK? Nanabozho 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Links on my Page

After looking around WP, I can't find where they say one way or the other, about my adding an outgoing link from this page or my User page. The best I can figure, it's a subjective case. I see Beesley links to her blog from her User page. The link in question, does tell something about me, and might be considered useful to those wondering about me.

The I Hate Wikipedia Site

Have a look at the site, and let me know what you think, here. If all goes well, I suppose I'll move it to my User page eventually. Nanabozho 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a link on my page to my blog. I've considered the issue for a month now, and feel that it might be of some use. Nanabozho 05:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Fair use images are not allowed on userspace, even if the copyright holder gives permission for it. See WP:FU#Policy. Also nothing is going to expire. The tag says there is no fair use rationale given for the image. If you want to email her to get a free image then that is fine. Tim Q. Wells 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ann Pudeator

Hi, Nanabozho! Usually you'd use the talk page of the article itself for discussing the article, but putting a note on a specific user's talk page is a good way to get his or her attention, and no one will object to it. Now, about linking: probably we can't link to a copyrighted article not posted by the copyright holder. (We're a little crazy about copyright here.) On the other hand, you can use the article as a source, making the reference to the original article rather than the online copy. - Nunh-huh 05:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just let me know if you need any help with wiki syntax or other problems that arise. If your genealogist shows up, I hope to find out the Judd/Greenslit connection (though for my own curiousity, it probably doesn't belong in the article <G>). - Nunh-huh 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I could write some good things about Nunh-huh, but I'll just say Thank You. Nanabozho 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia's form 990

I'm still working on the goal of having Wikimedia's latest IRS form 990 on WP's Wikimedia Page. It's been an interesting trip so far. I've posted a few times on that page's discussion page, I've tried to upload the file myself, I've linked to an accurate and true copy of the form from my site, I've had user Angela remove the link, I've posted on user Angela's page explaining the situation, and still something that I feel important has not yet been accomplished. Is the IRS important? Some feel that it is. This form I am talking about is required by the IRS, and provides much information on a non-profit. So, I thought I'd put try the helpme approach. This really can't be that hard to do. The main source of figuring out what is going on here is found on the Wikimedia discussion page, and if this isn't clear, please reply here. In the interests of full disclosure, check out the link at issue using the history deal, and I am assuming that will work. The link came from my WP Criticism site. I am thinking positive thoughts here. I am envisioning success.

It isn't possible to upload text files or pdfs through the MediaWiki software. It simply can't be done. That's the technical reason for why it won't be uploaded. It doesn't seem to me to be critical that every organization with an article have the latest 990 linked to it. If you read our external links guidelines, you will see that external links to information that could be easily incorporated into an article should not be added, rather, if it is a reliable source, the information should be added and the source cited. I am an admin. If you have questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. The helpme function is primarily for questions that would be answered by the help desk. This seems to me to be more of a foundation listserv sort of thing.—WAvegetarian (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not certain what makes the Wikimedia article special or different from the other articles on not-for-profits. It was decided relatively early on that the actual encyclopedia content would have no self-references and be able to stand on its own absent the structure of the Foundation or the software used to create it. Saying that not including this form is a "decision by Wikipedia to not disclose" doesn't make sense in light of this policy. If you want something included in the Wikipedia article about anything, including Foundation related subjects, you will have to make the argument for it on purely encyclopedic grounds without using any 'special case' arguments about its being related to the project in some way. That sentence has rather tortured syntax but I think you get what I mean. I think it will be very hard for you to do this, especially if you are trying to get a link up to a website with the URL ihatewikipedia. If you want disclosure, which seems to me to be the main thing you are interested in, I would suggest you check out the Foundation's About Wikimedia page. This would be the best disclosure spot as the encyclopedia is just one of many projects the foundation oversees; its content is not provided by the foundation. To get the form or its info posted up on the foundation site I would try either contacting a board member directly (other than Angela if she hasn't been a receptive) or sending an email to foundation-l in your capacity as a contributor to the project who is interested in what's behind the scenes.—WAvegetarian (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rivers and watersheds

Thanks for fixing up those two articles on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Six Mile Creek. I see I mis-spelled at least one word. Is there a spell check command or add-on software for Wipipedia that is really simple? Nanabozho 23:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I'm not sure that the category on the Watershed article is the best, but Wikipedia admins tend to dislike uncategorized articles, so I added something. (I'm defending an article I wrote last week that may not be notable enough for the admins, so I look out for other new, especially MN articles that might be vulnerable.) I use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer and Firefox checks spelling as you go. I highly recommend it. I also recommend joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. We have fun working together to make the most important MN articles excellent. Thanks for the new articles. --Appraiser 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Section lines

I wrote the article Section lines recently and think it was a mistake because there all ready exists a Section article. I'd like to delete the Section lines article, but don't know how? Help me. Thank you. {{helpme}} put {{[[template:Db-author|db-author]]}} on itBlacksmith2 ^talk 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image on Lake Langdon page

I have tried at least two times to get an image on the Lake Langdon page. I've had success before doing this, but can't find my problem here. You should be able to find the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Langdon_Bay_Shoreline_Blue_Heron.JPG Could you please help me? {{helpme}} Thank you. And while we are at it, is there a way to make the text wrap around the image? If you could do that too, I will have a model to use in the future.

I put the image in the infobox. Is that okay? WODUP 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maple Plain, MN: Metric/Imperial

I figured out the problem. If you include the country (United States) in the infobox, it uses imperial measurements as the default. If you put any other country besides the United States, or simply leave out the country, it will automatically use the metric system as the default. The Maple Plain infobox has been fixed. Eco84 | Talk 04:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, United States >>> Imperial. Nanabozho 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misery (band)

Hello – thanks for the message. Since you're unhappy with the AFD result, you should open a discussion at deletion review. In short, the three chief reasons I closed the discussion as 'delete' because 1) there were five editors who supported deletion, and their arguments were stronger than the two who supported continued inclusion; 2) the article had no sources; and 3) the band was not notable per WP:BAND. The discovery that the subject of the article was changed in April 2007 from a New York band called Misery to a Minneapolis band called Misery didn't help much either.

If you do decide to go to DRV, I'll be happy to lay out the full reasoning behind my position and an answer to each of your questions. Thanks again. - KrakatoaKatie 07:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Misery (band)

The goals should read "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of NOTABLE alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." Misery isn't notable. Would you like me to again explain why this is so? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To nominate Misery (Australian band) for deletion, follow the instructions at {{AfD in 3 steps}}. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of our WP:POINT policy? You most probably are; it is well-known because too many Wikipedians make a sport of accusing other Wikipedians of violating it. I prefer not to bandy it about myself, but your nomination of Misery (Australian band) is a textbook case. Just because you're pissed off that your pet article was deleted, you're going to piss away the valuable time of other contributors. To prove what? Will it bring your article back? Will it improve the encyclopaedia? Will gnawing this bone help you sleep at night? Hesperian 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

The attempt to delete this article for the reasons given is directly contrary to the cooperative principles of wikipedia. (I pass no judgment on any of the articles themselves--I am an ingnoramus on the subject) But to do so as a combination of revenge and experiment is interfering with the operation of AfD & other processes of the encyclopedia, and could well be considered reason for a block. I hope you will realize your error, and apologize on the relevant talk page, and at the afd. The correct action there is to ask to withdraw the request for deletion. DGG (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Warning Calm down Magic

I suppose it would be asking too much of Wikipedia to look beyond why an article was nominated and then objectively evauluate it? That's like saying, The devil made the nomination, so it's wrong. That we can find some rules and attempt to apply them here, isn't helping the situation. I made a nomination of an article with not much going for it. Are we at Defcon 1 now? Nanabozho 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Carlton

Hi. You had contacted me with a question regarding the Carlton page -- the box at the bottom of the page shows Carlton as a surrounding community. It is correct as it is. The box is just indicating that Carlton is one of the communities in the Twin Ports Area. (The metro area designated by the U.S. Census as Duluth/Superior/Cloquet and their surrounding communities.) I can see how it might be confusing. Damon207, 18 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Pierre Kory, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. – bradv🍁 23:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

My reply. It's sure difficult to figure out what you're referring to. I found this on the talk page all from me: You're going to lose to reality. Keep removing from here the people who can see. Stop going after the people who can see. Kory was right and is right at the 90% confidence level. These studies will keep coming out. Frontline doctors around the world don't care what you do here. What side of history are the censors on? Bret Weinstein said that. You're going after Kory. You are the censors. Yes, Youtube pulled the Weinstein/Kory video. But you're all the same thing, reading from the same script. Any independent minds here? I don't think so. Just a few tyrants. You are part of a power hierarchy arrayed against off the shelf, proven safe, drugs, in favor of vaccines that have not been tested in the medium and long term. Don't hide behind the word Science. You're in persecution mode. I ended up here looking to link to Kory's credentials and found this failed page. Tell your Mom what you do all day. Another Wikipedia hit job. You people ought to be ashamed. Ivermectin has many lines of evidence pointing to its effectiveness. You will have regrets while many parts of the world that do use it will good results. It's not about Science. It's about money. You fools cannot see regulatory capture when it's right in front of you. It turns out, Wikipedia is big Pharma. That thing you were against. You editors don't needto be afraid. You don't. You can change things. You said personal attack. Now point to me doing that. Was it the reference to somebody's Mom? You are attacking me and I want a review of your comment to me. How do I do that? You're being reckless with Wikipedia's good name. Perhaps you've been at this too long to be objective. Nanabozho (talk)